Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no authentication needed, data source/licensing (TVmaze.com, CC BY-SA), and the flag for self/voice roles. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences deliver purpose, output specifics, auth status, and source. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single parameter, a rich output schema already available, and safety annotations covering side effects, the description covers the tool's purpose, return content, auth requirement, and source. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single integer 'id' parameter with a clear description ('TVMaze show ID to retrieve cast and character information for'). The tool description doesn't add further syntax or format details; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cast list for a TV show'), enumerates the exact data fields (actor names, birthdays, genders, countries, character name + image), and includes a behavioral detail about self/voice roles. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling TVMaze tools like details, episodes, and search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes it clear the tool is for retrieving cast information for a specific show ID確. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over tvmaze.shows.details or tvmaze.shows.search, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The 'No auth required' hint is useful but not a selection guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.